Justice in Many Rooms Since Galanter: De-Romanticizing Legal Pluralism Through the Cultural Defense

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Contemporary Problems Pub Date : 2008-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1464900
M. Sharafi
{"title":"Justice in Many Rooms Since Galanter: De-Romanticizing Legal Pluralism Through the Cultural Defense","authors":"M. Sharafi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1464900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Marc Galanter's article, 'Justice in Many Rooms' (1981) was prescient in recognizing that nonstate law was not necessarily kinder and gentler than state law. While many writing in the 1970s and 80s celebrated nonstate law as more egalitarian and less coercive than state law, Galanter held back. Post-1980s critiques of the cultural defense, particularly by Asian American feminist lawyers, have also contributed to a shift in the scholarly perception of nonstate law. In the spirit of Galanter's piece, the cultural defense debate should be read not just as a discussion about multicultural tolerance, but also as an integral part of the legal pluralism literature.","PeriodicalId":39484,"journal":{"name":"Law and Contemporary Problems","volume":"2 1","pages":"139-146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Contemporary Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1464900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Marc Galanter's article, 'Justice in Many Rooms' (1981) was prescient in recognizing that nonstate law was not necessarily kinder and gentler than state law. While many writing in the 1970s and 80s celebrated nonstate law as more egalitarian and less coercive than state law, Galanter held back. Post-1980s critiques of the cultural defense, particularly by Asian American feminist lawyers, have also contributed to a shift in the scholarly perception of nonstate law. In the spirit of Galanter's piece, the cultural defense debate should be read not just as a discussion about multicultural tolerance, but also as an integral part of the legal pluralism literature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自《加兰特》以来的许多房间里的正义:通过文化防御去浪漫化法律多元主义
马克·加兰特(Marc galante)的文章《许多房间里的正义》(Justice in Many Rooms, 1981)很有先见之明,他认识到非州法律不一定比州法律更仁慈、更温和。在20世纪70年代和80年代,许多著作称赞非州法律比州法律更平等,强制性更少,但加兰特却退缩了。上世纪80年代后对文化辩护的批评,尤其是亚裔美国女权主义律师的批评,也促成了学术界对非州法观念的转变。本着加兰特文章的精神,文化防卫辩论不应仅仅被视为对多元文化宽容的讨论,还应被视为法律多元主义文学的一个组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Contemporary Problems
Law and Contemporary Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Law and Contemporary Problems was founded in 1933 and is the oldest journal published at Duke Law School. It is a quarterly, interdisciplinary, faculty-edited publication of Duke Law School. L&CP recognizes that many fields in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities can enhance the development and understanding of law. It is our purpose to seek out these areas of overlap and to publish balanced symposia that enlighten not just legal readers, but readers from these other disciplines as well. L&CP uses a symposium format, generally publishing one symposium per issue on a topic of contemporary concern. Authors and articles are selected to ensure that each issue collectively creates a unified presentation of the contemporary problem under consideration. L&CP hosts an annual conference at Duke Law School featuring the authors of one of the year’s four symposia.
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Re-Selection on Independent Decision Making in State Supreme Courts Voting Rights and the “Statutory Constitution” Challenging Gender in Single-Sex Spaces: Lessons from a Feminist Softball League Treaties and Human Rights: The Role of Long-Term Trends Correcting Federalism Mistakes in Statutory Interpretation: The Supreme Court and the Federal Arbitration Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1